Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    iNET Interactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    379
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 Times in 24 Posts

    Filename limitations with Windows and DVDs/CDs


    LangaList Plus

    Filename limitations with Windows and DVDs/CDs


    By Fred Langa

    "Path too long" problems can plague file-copy operations and DVD/CD burning in all versions of Windows. Here's a refresher on filename conventions.

    Plus: A reader wonders why I never cover Symantec/Norton security products the reply might surprise you!

    The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/langalist-plus/about-filename-limits-in-windows-and-dvdscds/ (opens in a new window/tab).

    Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.
    Last edited by Tracey Capen; 2016-09-26 at 12:59.

  2. #2
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    In the article, you wrote:
    The UDF file system (Universal Disk Format) is somewhat less restrictive still, with no arbitrary limit on folder depth. The Optical Storage Technology Association UDF specification (see OSTA spec page) lists the allowable maximum file/folder-name length as 256 bytes — not characters.

    Characters can require anywhere from seven to 32 bits, depending on the format and medium used. But typically one character is eight bits. So, in general, UDF usually allows for 32-character file/folder-name lengths, too.
    256 BYTES, with eight BITS per character, and eight bits per byte, is 256 characters, as I am sure you will be kicking yourself about

  3. #3
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    124
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Regarding Norton. I,too, used Norton but quickly lost interest after Symantec took over. Now I know why it "smelled" wrong to me.
    But I have a similar question: Why isn't Zone Alarm Extreme Security rated?

  4. #4
    Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Fred writes in his column that,

    I think running Symantec products is worse than running no security software at all.
    Given the requisite technical knowledge, that should be easy enough to test: set up identical PCs (possibly as virtual machines), one running a Norton (Symantec) product and the other one no security software, then expose them to the same malware packages and infected websites, and see how they each fare throughout.

    Anybody around with the time and expertise to run this test?
    Last edited by JorgeA; 2016-09-27 at 12:21. Reason: clarity

  5. #5
    5 Star Lounger Lugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    620
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 77 Times in 68 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LinusF3 View Post
    I,too, used Norton but quickly lost interest after Symantec took over.
    Same here. I loved Norton Utilities in the 80s/90s, and stayed with them after Symantec took over. But my experience mirrors Fred's, a steady decline in product quality. Shame Symantec also bought PC Tools around that time, which was a decent competitor to Norton for a while until it went flaky.

    Kudos to Fred for calling Symantec out.

    Quote Originally Posted by LinusF3 View Post
    Why isn't Zone Alarm Extreme Security rated?
    I have no experience with ZA recently, but maybe a decade ago and more, one of the first general troubleshooting questions was "Are you using ZA?". It used to break way more software than its competitors at that time.

    Hopefully ZA's rehab has been a lot more successful than Symantec's.
    Lugh.
    ~
    Windows 10 Pro x64 1607; Office 2016 (365 Home) x32; Win Defender, MBAM Pro

    ASRock H97 Anniversary; Xeon E3-1231V3 (like i7)
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970; 12GB Crucial DDR3 1600
    Logitech MX Master mouse; Roccat Isku kb

  6. #6
    5 Star Lounger Lugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    620
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 77 Times in 68 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JorgeA View Post
    That should be easy enough to test ... expose them to the same malware packages and infected websites
    You miss Fred's point, Jorge. Namely, that when you know you're unprotected, you are either extremely careful or using a machine you don't mind losing.

    Whereas with Symantec installed, an uninformed user would think they are protected and not take extreme care with valuable data.
    Lugh.
    ~
    Windows 10 Pro x64 1607; Office 2016 (365 Home) x32; Win Defender, MBAM Pro

    ASRock H97 Anniversary; Xeon E3-1231V3 (like i7)
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970; 12GB Crucial DDR3 1600
    Logitech MX Master mouse; Roccat Isku kb

  7. #7
    Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lugh View Post
    You miss Fred's point, Jorge. Namely, that when you know you're unprotected, you are either extremely careful or using a machine you don't mind losing.

    Whereas with Symantec installed, an uninformed user would think they are protected and not take extreme care with valuable data.
    I totally understand what Fred is saying. What I'm suggesting is that Fred's statement is a testable proposition that should be fairly easy to prove or disprove by someone with the requisite time and expertise.

    Look, I have my own problems with Norton/Symantec products. For several years they have been going down the Microsoft path of both uglifying and dumbing down the interface, in addition to removing features. But IMO it borders on the absurd to claim that it's better not to run any security software at all than to run one of their products. Unless we pulled the Ethernet plug on the PC, we could not be careful enough to match the level of security as we received e-mail and visited websites. Remember: "no security software at all" means no ad blockers, no spam filter, no behavior blocker. Everything comes in unhindered and you have no way to stop it, or even to know it's getting in.

  8. #8
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Re: Symantec
    I must agree with JorgeA on this.
    The statement "I think running Symantec products is worse than running no security software at all" is completely unsupportable.
    All of the major A/V vendors have their strengths, weaknesses and past issues; a Google search will attest to that. I have many commercial/industrial clients running Symantec Endpoint Protection and it has performed quite well especially in comparison to some other enterprise A/V solutions.
    Mark

  9. #9
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Courtenay, BC
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
    I've had the same experience as Fred.
    I'd used other Symantec bloatware prior and was very disappointed to hear they took over Norton. We'd used them throughout the office. And indeed, within the year, we'd replaced them. They had turned out to be the cause of lockups, slowdowns and other unacceptable issues.

    I get Fred's point although perhaps his wording was not ideal. Lugh put it well. The issue is people acting like they're protected when they're not the way they think they are. Kind of like Mercedes gained a reputation for being a very safe car. Then they got sloppy and built unsafe cars but people where still buying them for the safety.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •